LANGUAGE ISSUES AND THE ONE-NATION THEORY

Language has always been a symbol of identity. Even before the nation-state made territoriality a basis of a ‘national’ identity, people recognized kinship lineage (class or biradari) and language as possible bases of identity. However, modernity made language an even stronger symbol of identity than lineage. For instance, while pre-modern people divided themselves very often on the basis of class, occupation (barber, potter, sweeper etc) and caste, the modern ethnic movements in the world define themselves in terms of language and religion. In Pakistan, for instance, ethnic groups define their identity in term of their language (Sindhi, Siraiki, Pashto etc). In short, one of the symbols which creates and sustains a group identity is language.

If one looks at the formation of the modern states of Europe one finds that language has played a role in their establishment and development. For instance, the realm of the king of France had communities which spoke languages other than French. And even those who did speak French did not speak the Parisian, elitist French which was called ‘standard French’. What most ordinary people spoke were various dialects which were mutually intelligible but different from one another. By declaring the Parisian variety as the standard language, all the hitherto equal varieties—the dialects etc—became sub-standard, defective, uncouth forms of speech. Similarly, all the non-French languages were marginalized. Now all speakers had to learn standard French in under to get the best jobs and social prestige. In short, when national languages were standardized, the process militated against variety, marginalized linguistic minorities and facilitated the cultural domination of a certain urban power-elite.

The formation of European nation in Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and the United States facilitated, and was facilitated in turn, by the rise of a ‘national’ language. Of course, in some countries no language was officially declared as the national language, but everybody knew which language was used in official domains and possessed symbolic value. It was this language in which nationalist emotion was invested. And, in all cases, competing languages were marginalized, suppressed and eliminated. This process has accelerated under globalization which is killing the world’s over 6000 languages and thus reducing our cultural and linguistic diversity.

So far I have dealt with the way a national language strengthens the idea of a ‘nation’ while suppressing other languages. Sometimes, however, the process is reversed. In Ireland, for instance, the Irish language became the symbol of the Irish national identity during the last years of the nineteenth and the early ones of the twentieth century. This was all the more remarkable because most urbanized Irish people actually spoke and wrote in English. Irish was spoken only in rural areas in Western Ireland. Thus the value of Irish was purely symbolic. It was one means of resistance against the British who were ruling Ireland. Even now, although it is English which is used for most purposes in Ireland, Irish has an iconic value and is a potent identity symbol of the Irish nation.

Another language which helped forge a nation is Hebrew. Despite the primacy of the religious symbol (Judaism), it was Hebrew which made the modern Israelis into a nation. Otherwise the Jewish immigrants into Israel since the 1940s spoke so many languages that the sense of nationhood would not have developed easily had Hebrew not functioned as a unifying symbol. But in Hebrew’s case, too, a number of languages, including Arabic, were suppressed in order to give primacy to Hebrew. Linguistic nationalism, as we have seen, is hardly a painless process.

In South Asia the ruling elites and those who oppose them understand the unifying and divisive potential of language. Language has served to unify a class; a ‘nation’ and an ethnic group. Sanskrit, Persian and English create, sustain and unify a certain socio-economic class—the elite. All three were elitist preserves marking out an elite from the vast mass of the non-elite. Then there were such broad-based nationalist symbols as Urdu and Hindi. From 1860 up to 1947, these two languages served as identity symbols. Urdu became associated with the Islamic nationalist identity and Hindi with the Hindu identity. In reality, of course, most Muslims did not speak Urdu and nobody actually spoke Hindi. What was officially called ‘Hindi’was actally Sanskritized ‘Hindustani’. What people (i.e. Muslims and Hindus) actually spoke in North Indian cities and towns was actually Hindustani though the Muslims wrote it in the Persian script and put in a few more Persian and Arabic words than their Hindu neighbours who wrote it in the Devanagari script and put in some dialectal words. But reality is one thing and symbolism another. These two languages helped in the construction of two rational/or communal) identities which created two countries out of British India. Then again, language helps create an ethnic or sub-national identity. The major example of this is Bangladesh where Bengali became a component of ethnic identity as early as 1948. The language helped create a group and the group demanded a just share in power and wealth from the (West Pakistani) ruling elite. When this share was denied, the perception of a separate national identity, based primarily on language, led to the demand of autonomy and finally the creation of the nation-state of Bangladesh in 1971.

In India too the ethnic group identities based upon language were a force to reckon with. However, India created language-based states which did much to dilute the force of the ethnic demands. Where India failed, as in Kashmir, the identity-creating symbol is not language but religion. There are, to be sure, many identity-conferring symbols, and language is only one of them.

In Pakistan there have been many cases of language-based identity. Sindhi, Pashto, Siraiki, Urdu, Punjabi and Balochi etc have all been used to create or sustain ethnic identity. As the author has dealt with this issue in detail in Language and Politics in Pakistan (OUP, 2003), no details are necessary here. What is necessary is to point out that just as a language helps in the formation of a single nation, in the same way it also helps in the formation of a single ethnic identity or nationality. In short language is integrative as well as divisive. But if language is a two-edged sword, how should it be used in the national life?

This depends on the aim of the decision-makers. If their aim is the maintenance and consolidation of their power they would have no qualms in suppressing other classes, nationalities and groups. Sometimes, however, these policies backfire and there are rebellions, ethnic insurrections and terrorist strikes. However, if the aim is the maximum happiness and welfare of the largest number of people without suppressing the rights of any minority, then the language policy would respect diversity. In that case the exemplars would be Switzerland, Belgium, Canada and Spain (at least as far as Catalan is concerned). All these countries have given linguistic rights, jobs and prestige to linguistic minorities and really celebrate diversity. As most countries, at least in our part of the world, are multilingual, the policy which will bring most dividends is the one which will allow multilingualism to flourish. However, unless wealth and power are not distributed equitably, even the most egalitarian language policies will fail. That, essentially, is the message which the PONM ( Pakistan Oppressed Nations Movement) is giving all over Pakistan. The sense of alienation in the ethnic groups comprising the nation can only be addressed by ensuring that they share in the pie; that they have respect; that they have power and, of course, their languages and cultures are respected. If this does not happen the frustrations with the Centre and economic deprivation will make people unite with the help of many symbols, one being language. In such cases language creates a ‘nation’—but at the cost of breaking up an existing one. So, if language is to create ‘one nation’, the decision-makers should see that they value unity in diversity and do away with injustice—for it is injustice, not language, which breaks nations.

Dr. Tariq Rahman